> It's a weakening of Kaczynski's argument to say it's about activists not caring about collateral.
Maybe, but what you say here isn't supported by the bit you quoted.
That bit actually seemed completely level headed and well written. He defined his terms (leftist) and admitted it's a sloppy term, and then he wrote something I feel is true about most political ideologues - that they care more about their arguments and winning than the correctness of the arguments or value of their opinions.
> He absolutely mixes in there insinuations that this is all by some secret design.
Again, maybe in the overall manifesto, but not there. In the quote provided he just says "Xs works for the goals of X, even if their message is 'Save the Ys'"
That's not hard to believe, it's something we all need to try to avoid in our own thinking.
> ungodly amounts of paper writing about the motives of the leftist.
:D Have you ever read what leftists themselves write? You could fill libraries just with analyses of Marx.
I think the scary thing is that Ted is very well read and could be writing for the New Yorker ... and he justifies violence.
But not because he's the only one doing so, he's just the one who decided to take it into his own hands instead of the acceptable ways to call for violence - to advocate using our military to do it, or hoping that someone 'punches' them for 'being a nazi'.
He's scary because he disproves the narrative of a barely literate, ignorant, conservative-adjacent, god-fearing, terrorist who hates us because of our freedoms, or whatever. He is us, one of the best of us at one time, and we can be vicious.
> To paraphrase 'ole ted "You see, affirmative action makes white people feel bad and mad at black people which is the real secret goal of leftists".
No. It's more like "Leftist activists push AA and other policies with no concern for the impact on the communities they're purportedly intended to help."
> Do you, or have you ever, felt mad a black person because of affirmative action?
I'm pretty sure you could find a ton of people who do if you searched for it. But even if the harm wasn't real I think the point is that activists don't care about collateral damage.
Had they all quit that would have been fine - nobody can force you to work. But they chose to not work and keep their jobs.
> The laborers who held the skills needed
So did many other people. They conspired to break the law by arranging to violate their employment contracts in a group so as to cause undue difficulty to their employer and they held public infrastructure hostage to prevent anyone else operating it.
> Reagan's actions have had a profoundly disturbing effect on the American middle class
The death of unions is a lot broader of an issue than RR killing the ATCU, and generally much deserved. Unions exist to save lives where the law isn't capable but for every plausibly relevant situation like air-traffic control or deep mining there are a hundred overreaches like trying to unionize Amazon warehouses.
As society and work got safer in general it became less important to have such an option as the right to blockade someone's property and dictate who they can hire.
This is clearly bad law. Not only is it unknowable and unenforceable, but it serves to reduce oversight if actually followed. Society is better off when we pay attention to how it runs and this type of law directly criminalizes that.
And it shows a basic misunderstanding of government, if it's paid for by your tax money it clearly involves you.
This is what the USA has over almost every other country - an acknowledgement that ultimately the people charter the government not the other way around.
If there were two separate versions of Chrome you can be sure there'd be people trying to block the dev version because they'd think using it is hacking or someone being tricked and everyone would be adding 'no-dev' scripts to their pages and we'd lose out by moving the web closer to PDFs.
And you're limiting this to only things disclosed during the Elon Twitter-files?
Because Jack Dorsey said to congress that they blocked the NYPost story because of reports by the dems and the FBI. The NYPost's story didn't have porn thus they reported at least some non-porn links.
We've known the broad strokes of this for quite a while and it's just the emails and chat logs of the conspirators that we're seeing for the first time now.
I didn't say that I did. The scope of "corrupt dealings" is much wider than the scope of illegal dealings.
It contains possibly legal things that the voters might find to be a turn-off, such as the ne'er-do-well son selling access to his dad in his official position.
Normally you'd be right about how you can't prove something doesn't exist, but if you go up thread you'll see that xcrunner claimed that the laptop contained only dick-pics. It's fair for Alvah to ask for proof.
Had xcrunner simply asked for proof the burden would be on Alvah to provide it, but because xcrunner made a claim he took the burden of proof on himself.
Source that the FBI/Dems/etc only sent dick-pic links to be censored, or proof that the laptop leak contained more than dick pics?
Earlier in this thread you made a claim that the leak was only dick pics, have you read a source which claimed that, or is it only that you haven't seen a source talk about anything else?
I don't know the entire contents but it is certainly more than just dick pics. I've heard someone discuss using the dates in those to corroborate other stories which means they aren't just salacious either.
They conspired to hide a leak that they thought would tip the election. Not that the leak was only dick pics, but if dick pics were enough to tip the election wouldn't that still be a valid expression of voter will?
> I assume you’re very mad at Russia too?
But, but, whatabout the other guys!
No, because I don't have a reason to trust Putin or the Russians, and neither do US citizens. But they do have a reason, and a right, to trust their elected officials.
> Have you heard of being gay? I'm guessing you have, but you choose not to care
Being gay has nothing to do with child abuse. You're gay-baiting, conflating transgenderism with homosexuality. This is one of the issues the LGB Alliance was founded to address.
> the insane amount of male-on-male sexual violence that occurs among children in the current system.
Yes, from men. That's my point. As a parent you need to know the sex of those who are interacting with your children.
> Again, then why do we let young boys change in the same room as grown men? Is the problem really just about biological sex?
We let them change with either parent because presumably their parent can keep them safe with active supervision. Generally though, other parents would recommend that young children use the womens' facility with another woman if neither parent is available.
> Wait until you find out how gay men feel!
Men are men, straight or gay. Women are smaller and not as strong.
> Sure, and what exactly is the reason behind why a vagina is the definition of who is a woman deserving of protection?
Having a vagina is not the definition of a female, but they do strongly correlate.
Everyone deserves protection but women's protection is largely achieved by providing sexually segregated spaces.
> There are plenty of weak men who empathize with women who are very at risk for physical and sexual violence.
Hopefully most males empathize with women but even if the risks were justification for a man to leave male spaces they aren't a justification to invade female spaces.
> IS the only solution to say who cares you were born with a penis?
Why is your solution to take away all women and children's safety to provide questionable safety to some males?
If you can't stop abusive men in the men's room how do you plan to stop them from following you into the women's washroom using the same legal exception written for you?
> Buddy, would you be willing to believe I have less than zero interest in women?
Would you believe that this isn't relevant? It's not "Women's spaces, and anyone else who swears they don't like vaj".
Women's spaces don't work if there are exceptions, they only work if they can be used to instantly exclude any male who tries to enter. You being there lessens the effectiveness of the system even if you are pure of heart.
That makes no sense. An enby is saying they don't have gender, not that gender doesn't exist. In fact, if you don't use gender words for everyone else you're sort of throwing shade at them.
That sounds like a liberal feminist from ~20 years ago, trying to remove words that they think are used to oppress people. Like the people who invented Latinx.
Maybe, but what you say here isn't supported by the bit you quoted.
That bit actually seemed completely level headed and well written. He defined his terms (leftist) and admitted it's a sloppy term, and then he wrote something I feel is true about most political ideologues - that they care more about their arguments and winning than the correctness of the arguments or value of their opinions.
> He absolutely mixes in there insinuations that this is all by some secret design.
Again, maybe in the overall manifesto, but not there. In the quote provided he just says "Xs works for the goals of X, even if their message is 'Save the Ys'"
That's not hard to believe, it's something we all need to try to avoid in our own thinking.
> ungodly amounts of paper writing about the motives of the leftist.
:D Have you ever read what leftists themselves write? You could fill libraries just with analyses of Marx.
I think the scary thing is that Ted is very well read and could be writing for the New Yorker ... and he justifies violence.
But not because he's the only one doing so, he's just the one who decided to take it into his own hands instead of the acceptable ways to call for violence - to advocate using our military to do it, or hoping that someone 'punches' them for 'being a nazi'.
He's scary because he disproves the narrative of a barely literate, ignorant, conservative-adjacent, god-fearing, terrorist who hates us because of our freedoms, or whatever. He is us, one of the best of us at one time, and we can be vicious.